I do appreciate your sincere response. But you also somewhat missed my point:
This whole effort could still happen even if it doesn’t become an official “objective” - through the same, existing mechanisms (Change Proposals, Spin / Remix creation process, etc.). We don’t have a mechanism (other than the legal banhammer) to actually prevent somebody from working on something they’re interested in (and I do think that this is mostly a good thing). I only think that it would be better for the project not to additionally promote a technology that is - at least in its current form - deeply problematic (in a number of ways that is getting difficult to keep count of) by making something so close to it one of the project “objectives”.
I am cognizant of the fact that this might just be me being an AI Luddite - over the past few years, I have become allergic to “AI” getting attached to basically anything (from phones to floating data centres in the sky) - it has often been a good indicator of things beeing en 
ified.
I’m not on the Council, my voice won’t matter here in the end - so feel free to feed my feedback into the /dev/null shredder. But it didn’t feel right to say nothing when I am seriously concerned about the increasing amount of AI Kool-Aid consumption. /part